The nature of mystery

One of the things I wanted to talk about earlier this week before the news of the Dagger nominations hit was Stephen King's THE COLORADO KID. And Patrick Anderson's take in Monday's Washington Post -- very spoiler-laden, so click at your own risk -- seemed like a great jumping-off point. (M.A. Orthofer at the Complete Review also has his own analysis of the book, as does Ed Gorman, Craig McDonald and USA Today's Carol Memmott.) Essentially, the book uses a mysterious death and its investigation as a means of probing the very nature not only of mystery itself, but how to tell a story. It's a somewhat risky approach, and it didn't completely work for me, but the fact that I'm still thinking about it weeks after I finished it is testament to something. At minimum, that King found a way to write a pulp novel that requires much analysis.

That the book is not a conventional mystery is fine, but King's afterword almost seems to spoonfeed what the reader is supposed to take away from it:

"Mystery is my subject here," King goes on to say, "...it's the beauty of the mystery that allows us to live sane as we pilot our fragile bodies through this demolition- derby world." (That, for me, was the best line in the book.) The author concludes, defensively for such a rich and famous fellow, "But if you tell me I fell down on the job and didn't tell all of this story there was to tell, I say you're all wrong."

In a way, it's sad that King felt he needed to explain why he chose to tell the story in the way he did. Either you get it, or you don't, or you are somewhere in between. My reaction wasn't anywhere near as negative as Anderson's because I thought it was cool that King wanted to try something a little bit different, and mess with the whole "order out of chaos" requirement that informs much of crime fiction then and now. The problem, I felt, was the approach. Because this is an "as told to" story, I felt cut off and distant -- why is this particular mystery so important, and why does it obsess the characters so?

But then again, there are always cases that haunt. I know I have them. Some -- like BTK -- have been solved. Others, like Cali, may never be. And spending those precious hours wondering why, trying to find solutions, is frustrating and maddening. But it's also real.

So in the end, I'm still not sure how I feel about THE COLORADO KID. I'm curious to hear other people's thoughts, and also about whether the order-from-chaos ethos must be observed (chaos-from-order is noir, but I'm speaking of chaos breeding more chaos, or a more static approach to storytelling.)

In other words, must crime fiction be fair to be effective?

Comments

[Stephen]

The links for "Craig McDonald" and "USA Today's Carol Memmott" lead to the same review.

[Jenny D]

At the beginning of September I wrote a review for the upcoming Voice Literary Supplement, but the VLS was then postponed, I think, from Sept. to Nov. So wait and see the full account there, but I liked it a lot (barring that awful-and-surely-not-intentional Starbucks glitch, which the Literary Saloon caught as well, and a bit too much folksiness in the dialogue). I saw it as a very suitable and interesting sequel to "On Writing," which I loved. It's true, it's not exactly a fit for the pulpiness of the Hard Case Crime line (in this case the cover art is delightfully inappropriate, in a way I took to be deliberate), but it's an extremely enjoyable and thought-provoking read.

[Ron]

It's definitely a character study--I saw it as King reveling in that small-town Maine culture he likes to sketch out in exacting detail from time to time. So that to me the point wasn't the story of the Colorado Kid, but the response of the young woman to hearing the older guys tell that story, and what the transmission said about their relationships to each other.

It's a decent story--my only complaint is that it's not really "hard case crime," or even all that pulp, really, but perhaps I've been spoiled by the other great stuff Charles and Max put out.

[David J. Montgomery]

It's definitely a curious book. Not really a mystery, although it's being billed as such. I found it entertaining, but not fulfilling. It's a frustrating book. But it's a powerful piece of narrative, like a story told around the campfire by someone who really knows what they're doing.

[Chris Mooney]

I finished up the book two days ago and had a somewhat similar reaction as Sarah; I can't really get it out of my mind.

Books like these, I think, speak to people's personalities when it comes to reading (and watching TV shows, for that matter). Some people need the mystery wrapped up - need it all wrapped up. Then there are others, like myself, who don't mind (or need) every loose end tied up.

I think back to one of the last episodes of The Sopranos where a Russian gangster was "supposedly" shot. It looked like he was shot, but they didn't find his body. Did he get up and run away? Was he still alive or did he collapse somewhere and die?

Viewers had to wait months until the season opener, then waited through the new episodes waiting for an answer . . . kept waiting . . . waiting . . . sorry, no answer. I was completely comfortable with not knowing what happened to him. A lot of people I know were pissed. They needed to know, they had to know, goddamnit, and they were good and pissed at the show's creator, Mr. Chase, for failing to provide an answer.

Mysteries and thrillers, by and large, have to offer some sort of solution. We are attracted to mystery, but we need answers and solutions. King's novel is a risky move because it splits it straight down the middle. What he's asking for, I think, is for the reader to use their imagination here and come up with their own answers. Some people - some readers - hate that (which is why a TV show like the amazing Lost, you'll either love it or hate it). If you're looking for a mystery with spoon-feed answers, stay away from this one. Personally, I was okay with it . . . this time.

[Kevin Wignall]

I haven't read the King book but I think Chris makes some interesting points about satisfying (or not) your readers. The biggest complaint I have about my books is the lack of neat solutions, most notably with the UK-only "Among the Dead", but it also intrigued me that some reviewers of "For the Dogs" subconsciously tied up loose ends that were deliberately left dangling.
Btw, I'm with you on "Lost" - it's showing here at the moment and I think it's a masterclass in ambiguous but gripping storytelling.

[David J. Montgomery]

Lost is a good example because it points out how tiresome ambiguous storytelling can get. Some ambiguity can work, if done well, but there comes a time when the audience just wants to know what the hell is going on.

[Kevin Wignall]

David, we're only about eight episodes in over here, so maybe I haven't reached that point yet.
I remember being in on Twin Peaks before many of my friends but giving up long before them, for exactly that reason.

[David J. Montgomery]

I finally got tired of Lost by the end of the season... but then the premiere of the 2nd season sucked me back in. They have some really cool stuff going on there, but they need to dole out a little more than they're giving, I think.

[Mary]

Haven't read the book yet, but I just watched a great piece on Sunday Morning featuring Stephen King and Charles Ardai (Hard Case Crime). Wish I had known in advance that it would be on so I could have let a few folks know.

[Andi]

"In other words, must crime fiction be fair to be effective?"
Not necessarily, at least not for me, but it can't be completely UNfair. You can't bring in the surPRISE villain 30 pages from the end when there was no mention of that person before. Or cheat as in the "it was only a dream" sort of cop-out. But I've read crime fiction with ambivalent endings, ambiguous endings, and non-endings - where nothing really HAPPENS in the sense we expect and i've been fine about it. Other things catch my attention - the writing, usually.
So many readers talk abou needing the closure that mystery fiction brings - good triumphing over evil, but that's not why I read it so i don't expect neatness or fairness at the end always. I still think there are things to be said when a writer does that. We don't like to be toyed with exactly, but we'll be patient if there's enough going on to capture our attention - or at least I will. But then, I don't watch "Lost" - Stu does - and probably would have lost patience with in around episode 3. Twin Peaks? We were just realizing that we moved to Seattle just about the time TP and Northern Exposure appeared. Our introduction to "life here in the Pacific Northwest". Snort.